Supreme Court

From CQ Rollcall Next Monday is the next time the court might issue its rulings on the constitutionality of the 2010 health care law or the Arizona immigration law. There are only two more scheduled “decision days” left in its term after that.

Healthcare - Supreme Court Arguments

You can listen to last week's arguments presented in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Day One

;

Looking Ahead

The new term has begun at the US Supreme Court. This C-SPAN programme gives a preview of the cases that the Court is likely to be considering in the coming months.

The Local Courts

This blog has frequently dealt with the Supreme Courts of both the UK and USA.

UK Supreme Court -  Keeping up with Britain's top court - plans for Supreme Court - Opening in 2009 -

US Supreme Court -  US Constitution Art III - Oral arguments - Elena Kagan interview - Louis Brandeis - Packing the Court

But these courts deal with only a tiny proportion of cases. All cases start - and almost all are completed - in the local courts.

In the UK the local courts are the Magistrates Courts and the County Courts. (most places have a Crown Court relatively close to them - but they are less local - and deal with the more serious cases. The High Court has branches in London (Royal Courts of Justice) and around the country (District Registeries - Bedford; Birkenhead; Birmingham; Bradford; Bristol; Canterbury; Chester; Colchester; Croydon; Dewsbury; Halifax; Leeds; Leicester; Lincoln; Liverpool; Manchester; Newcastle upon Tyne; Norwich; Nottingham; Scarborough; Sheffield; Southampton; Teesside (In Middlesbrough); Warrington

To find details about a particular court, or courts in an area - follow this link.

Magistrates Courts have both criminal and civil jurisdiction - but it is their criminal responsibilities which are most noted. All cases start there - and 95% of cases are dealt with there (excluding appeals and referral to the Crown Court for sentencing). Some offences - "summary offences" - The least serious, which includes Driving without insurance; and Common Assault - can only be dealt with in the Magistrates Court. There are an important set of offences - such as Theft and Assault causing actual bodily harm - which are "triable either way". They can be dealt with by the Magistrates or passed on to the Crown Court where a jury sits. The Magistrates decide - but take into account the wishes of the Prosecution - and of the Defendant (There's a useful wiki from Sheffield University about the "right" to a jury trial in England - available here)

The most serious cases involve "indictable offences" - such as Murder; Manslaughter and Rape - and must be heard in the Crown Court - but preliminary hearings are held in the Magistrates Court. The old "committal proceedings" have gone - but an "Early Administrative Hearing" is held dealing with issues of legal aid and bail. The case is then sent to the Crown Court.

On the civil side the main local court is the "County Court" - despite the name they have nothing to do with the counties in England. There are 216 of them. Where a claim is for £15,000 or less, the case must be started in the County Court (£50,000 for personal injury cases).

US Constitution - Art III

An annotated version of theThird Article can be accessed here. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has its own website, with lots of information about its' history, makeup, procedure and cases.

US Constitution - The Preamble

A number of my students are this week studying thr principles behind Constitutional law. I'd like to welcome them to this short series on the US Constitution. But this blog is open to all - so even if you aren't a law student - I hope you find these brief pieces useful.

The US Constitution is an ideal document for studying the principles of constitutions. It is succinct - and logically deals with the key matters that a constitution should address - namely: who is to hold power - how are they chosen? who qualifies to be chosen? how long is their term of office? how can they be removed? what powers do they have? - and for what purposes? what limitations exist on the exercise of those powers? What are the 'checks and balances'? How can the rules be amended?

While this series concentrates on the US Constitution - I would encourage you to look at other constitutions - as a comparison - of structure, and of content? What do you think is essential? A database of constitutions can be accessed here. (Note - most have translations available - but you may need to look around the page of the national constitution to find the translated version link)

This first piece outlines the preamble.

Elena Kagan Interview

I enjoy listening (in the early hours of the morning - or late at night when my eyesight tires)to the C-SPAN podcasts which I subscribe to. Last week I listened to a very interesting interview given by the new Supreme Court justice. It provides a useful insight into the workings of the Supreme Court of the United States. And don't forget this evening's C-SPAN special on the Court. A legal feast!

Welcome to 2011!

If your New Year's Resolution is to learn about the US and UK Constitutions; their governmental institutions and elections - then Washminster is the place - day by day - to increase your knowledge and appreciation.

Can I recommend watching C-SPAN this Sunday (2nd Jan) at 6:30 pm ET [11.30pm UK] when they will be broadcasting "The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court"

This documentary takes an unprecedented look at the Court, in which you hear directly from all current and retired Supreme Court Justices about the role of the Court, its traditions, and its history. Tour the building and go behind the scenes with experts on the Court, including staff, journalists, and historians. Originally aired in 2009, the documentary has been updated to include comments from the newest Justice, Elena Kagan, as well as a look at several recent developments at the Court.

It is available live on C-SPAN (sadly not broadcast via satellite TV in Europe); or via their website. It will also be broadcast on C-SPAN Radio (for which there is an iPhone app). For those of you in Europe, or otherwise unable to watch live - it will be available later on C-SPAN's archive website.

Oral Arguments in the Supreme Court

The oral arguments in the Snyder vs. Phelps case (the group from a "church" who have been protesting at funerals of soldiers) were heard at the Supreme Court on Wednesday 6th October 2010.
It is possible to listen to the arguments - with pictures of the participants provided by C-SPAN - here.

The active involvement of the Supreme Court Judges is to be noted. Each side has 30 minutes to present their case, and the questions from the Justices can take up almost all of that time! For further information on oral argument before SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) see here (particularly Rule 28).

Details of the facts - from the Citizen Media Law Project website -

The Westboro Baptist Church is a fundamentalist Christian church that contends that God kills soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as punishment for America'stolerance of homosexuality and for the presence of gays in the U.S. military. The church operates a number of websites, including www.godhatesfags.com, on which it disseminates its rabidly anti-homosexual views. The church has gained notoriety for staging protests at the funerals of U.S. soldiers in order to draw attention to its message.



Albert Snyder's son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was a U.S. Marinewho was killed on March 3, 2006 during active service in Iraq. His bodywas returned to the United States, and his family held a funeral forhim on March 10, 2006 in Westminster, Maryland.


Westboro Baptist Church pastor and founder Fred Phelps and members of his congregation picketed Matthew's funeral, holding signs expressing anti-gay, anti-American, and anti-Catholic slogans, including "God hates you" and "You're going to hell."


Westboro Baptist Church also posted an essay on its website entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder." In the essay, statements indicated that Albert and his wife “raised [Matthew] for the devil,” “RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery,” “taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity,” and “taught Matthew to be an idolator.”

The transcript of the oral arguments is available here.

Packing the Court

I use the trains frequently - travelling between my home in Milton Keynes - and my academic work in Leicester for Leicester University; Birmingham for the Open University - and my three days a week working in the the House of Lords, London. One great advantage of using public transport is that I get some time to read or listen to audio books.

Over the last three weeks, ending yesterday, I have listened to the audiobook, "Packing the Court" by James MacGregor Burns. It is an excellent book - combining a thorough survey of the history of the Supreme Court with an argument against the Court's practice of 'Judicial Review'. The book highlights the political nature of the Supreme Court. Many Justices have been former politicians - and all have been nominated by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate - so many of the choices have been overtly party political. I thoroughly recommend the book to anyone wanting a good history of the Court and its justices (and American history generally). Its arguments are worth reflecting upon too - whether you are an American citizen - or a citizen or resident of another country. The issues of the role of the judiciary - and its relationship to democratically elected institutions - are relevant worldwide. In the United Kingdom - which its constitutional setup evolving quickly - it is of particular importance to reflect upon these themes.

There is an excellent review from the New York Times accessible here.

Details of the book (in many forms) from the publisher are available here.

Louis Brandeis

One of the greatest Supreme Court Justices was Louis Brandeis. He was particularly known for his defences of the freedoms of speech and privacy.

William O Douglas, the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said of him -
“Brandeis was a militant crusader for social justice whoever his opponent might be. He was dangerous not only because of his brilliance, his arithmetic, his courage. He was dangerous because he was incorruptible. . . [and] the fears of the Establishment were greater because Brandeis was the first Jew to be named to the Court."

Melvin Urofsky, had has previously written extensively on Brandeis has recently published "Louis D Brandeis: A Life". He was interviwed about the subject of his book on C-SPAN's "Q&A"